Conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig denied claims that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot was a political choice.
Last week's ruling by the Colorado court was the first time the court adopted the theory that the former president disqualified himself from a second term by trying to overturn the 2020 election.
In an interview with MSNBC on Saturday, host Ali Velshi asked the former judge about his concerns that disqualifying the Republican front-runner in the 2024 election would be undemocratic, even if it complied with U.S. laws.
What happens if Trump’s disqualification in Colorado goes to the Supreme Court
Luttig criticized politicians and the media for adopting this argument, explaining that "it is the Constitution itself that tells us that disqualification is not contrary to democracy."
"In fact, the Constitution tells us that any conduct can lead to disqualification. That is, rebellion or anti-democratic rebellion. To me, this is as clear as any document or constitution can make it a point,” Luttig said.
“I think it is abundantly clear, and it will be abundantly clear to the American public, that it is the Constitution of the United States that disqualifies a former president from higher office, if he is disqualified. Speaking to political warriors, it's not President Joe Biden. It's not the Democrats. They are not anti-Trump. “It’s the Constitution of the United States,” he added.
The legal conundrum at the heart of the case concerns the wording of the Constitution's insurrection clause and whether Trump incited the insurrection when his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 .
A Colorado district judge ruled last month that Trump "engaged in insurrection" by inciting the mob to storm the U.S. Capitol, but the 14th Amendment's clause barring certain officials involved in the insurrection does not apply to the president. However, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected this argument in a 4-3 vote, holding that the provision applied to the former president.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the court wrote. "We are aware of the scale and weight of the issues that now confront us. We are also aware of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being influenced by public reaction to decisions that the law requires us to take. achieve."